2 August 2012

Rosa
Luxemburg’s “Reform or Revolution?”
is a great classic. In the first place it is a thorough polemical rejection of
Eduard Bernstein’s 1899 “Evolutionary Socialism”,
which book Luxemburg deals with comprehensively, to the point where she
concludes:

“It was enough for opportunism to speak out to
prove it had nothing to say. In the history of our party that is the only
importance of Bernstein’s book.”

This was
true. The reformists have never made any advance on Bernstein. But they keep
coming.

“Reform or
Revolution?” at once became the beginning of an even more crucial polemic, this
time between Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin, which generated further “classics”,
and which we will follow in this part of our course on the classics.

Luxemburg
demolishes Bernstein but then contradicts Lenin and is in turn corrected by
Lenin’s final reply. In the process of these two successive polemics (first
Bernstein versus Luxemburg and Lenin,
then Luxemburg versus Lenin), the
modern communist parties were defined sharply for the first time, and
irreversibly differentiated from the reformists, and from the reformist mass
organisations such as trade unions.

Lenin
published “What is to be Done?”
in 1902 in response to the same book of Eduard Bernstein’s and the consequent
outbreak of “economism”, also called “opportunism”, or “reformism”, or
“syndicalism”, (or in South Africa, “workerism”). Lenin went further than
Luxemburg. Lenin’s “What is to be Done?” is regarded as the defining blueprint
of the communist parties as they are now. The communist parties have no
compromise with reformism.

By 1919 the
Communist International (also called Third International, or Comintern) had
been formed and by 1921 the CPSA (now SACP) had been admitted to it as a
recognised Communist Party.

Some other
notable events of this period include the founding Congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic and Labour Party (RSDLP) in Minsk in 1898. Lenin was a
member, and was the editor of the journal “Iskra”,
which he founded in 1900.

The German
Social Democrats were the most numerous, well-established and long-standing of
the supposedly revolutionary parties at the time. Rosa Luxemburg, though
originally Polish, was a senior member of the German party.

In 1903 the
Second Congress of the RSDLP took place in Brussels and London. The consequence
was the split between the Bolshevik majority and the Mensheviks minority, in
the course of which the Mensheviks blackmailed the majority and consequently
got away with most of the spoils, including the magazine “Iskra”. Hence Lenin’s detailed 1904 report of this Congress is
called “One Step Forward,
Two Steps Back”. It is this document that prompted Rosa Luxemburg to
raise objections in the form of her 1904 work known as “Leninism or Marxism?”.

Lenin’s reply (1904) to Rosa Luxemburg was conclusive. It
settled all the open questions.

In 1905 a
revolution broke out in Russia, which resolved into a bourgeois-democratic
advance and the establishment of the “Duma” (parliament) in Russia. The RSDLP
held its Third Congress in that year, and Lenin wrote “Two Tactics of
Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution”, a full differentiation
of the revolutionaries from the reformists, which we will come to.

In 1914 at
the outbreak of war between the main Imperialist powers most of the
Social-Democrats of the Second International, including the German
Social-Democrats led by Karl Kautsky, abandoned their internationalism and sided
with their separate bourgeois ruling classes. The RSDLP held out against this
collapse, while Luxemburg founded the anti-war Spartacist League in Germany. In
February, 1917 a second bourgeois revolution in Russia overthrew the Tsar, and
in October the Great October (proletarian) revolution was successfully carried
out under Lenin’s leadership.

In January
1919, Rosa Luxemburg was murdered in Berlin by the proto-fascist “Freikorps”
organisation.

The document linked below (in two parts) is a redacted (shortened) version of “Reform or
Revolution?” prepared for discussion purposes. Two more points can usefully be
picked out at this stage. The first is the direct statement of the matter at
issue in the opening lines of Luxemburg’s Introduction:

‘Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms?
Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing
order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not… It is in Eduard
Bernstein's theory… that we find, for the first time, the opposition of the two
factors of the labour movement. His theory tends to counsel us to renounce the
social transformation, the final goal of Social-Democracy and, inversely, to
make of social reforms, the means of the class struggle, its aim… But since the
final goal of socialism constitutes the only decisive factor distinguishing the
Social-Democratic movement from bourgeois democracy and from bourgeois
radicalism, the only factor transforming the entire labour movement from a vain
effort to repair the capitalist order into a class struggle against this order,
for the suppression of this order–the question: "Reform or
Revolution?" as it is posed by Bernstein, equals for the Social-Democracy
the question: "To be or not to be?"’

The second
comes within the text where Luxemburg describes the “Sisyphus”-like
situation of the small enterprises under monopoly capitalism, so typical of
South Africa today, as follows:

“The struggle of the average size enterprise
against big Capital… should be rather regarded as a periodic mowing down of the small enterprises,
which rapidly grow up again, only to be mowed down once more by large
industry.”

The above is to
introduce the original reading-text:Reform or Revolution?, Rosa Luxemburg, 1900, Part 1 and Part 2.